Bolt on or neckthrough ? And why?

[jazzyvee]

I don't think it was something i had ever considered as a requirement any more than set neck vs bolt-on vs neck through.
Just happens that I bought a really good neck through and just stayed with what I know. I  have bought a Vietnamese minor brand bolt-on that I use for jam sessions or practicing if i'm away from home.

The access to the upper end of the fretboard is better with the neck through but to be honest i spend minimal time up that end to really say it's an issue. Also the sustain is not something I have found lacking in any bass I have owned. 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by jazzyvee

[Doctor J]

Great upper access is very possible with bolt-ons. It's just most people seem to be happy to play something designed 70 years ago with a very rudimentary (and cheap) way of attaching one piece of wood to another. Here's a selection of three 24 fret designs, a Warwick neck-through, Alembic set-neck and an Aria bolt-on. Upper fret access is dependent on an extension of the neck into the body for the set-neck and bolt-on, but it's far from difficult to make a bolt-on at least as accessible as neck-through. If you don't hear the supposed benefits and detriments of one compared to the other, and I am one of them, then why would you lose and sleep over it once the instrument itself is sufficient quality?

 

[itu]

Neck joints:

1) through body neck

2) set neck

3) bolt on

4) neck through bridge

 

The last one is known from S. D. Curlee instruments. One more to consider.

[Lfalex v1.1]

I've had them all. 

Bolt on

Neck Through

Set neck.

Not sure what @itu means with his #4.

 

But I'll add monocoque- only moulded basses need apply;

 

Status Streamline and BassLab instruments, for example. 

 

In any case,  I've never found the construction method to be the characteristic that determines my choice of instrument. I don't struggle with upper-fret access, and I get up there quite a bit.

 

Comfort and ergonomics are determined more by design.  Tone more by the electronics package, Pickup placement and hardware. 

 

I've Googled the SD Curlees. I get it now.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lfalex v1.1

[martthebass]

In general I’d say it isn’t a major consideration for me. I like the aesthetics and ‘upmarket’ feel in a thru-neck but sound wise in a fretted instrument I think the effect is limited (who needs a note to sustain for a minute in a real life situation?).

A few years back when I was auditioning Warwick Thumb fretless basses however I did find the thru-neck smoother and the sustain better than the bolt on which to me did benefit typical fretless lines.

[fleabag]

I favour the bolt through.  It's a real oddball though.

[Lfalex v1.1]

I do understand the appeal of neck-through basses. I own one,  and it's marvelous. But how much of that comes from the construction and how much from the materials and the rest,  I couldn't say. 

 

It does sustain superbly,  but sustain isn't all about duration, it's also the quality of the sustain. 

Live,  it's not as obvious. More so on recordings.

[itu]

I think a neck through is closest to monocoque - one piece wooden bass could be nearly possible. Feasible? Maybe not.

 

@Lfalex v1.1 please check SDC's offering. I learned about this construction about five years ago.

[Grassie]

I’ve always had bolt-ons. I’ve never had any issues like a lack of sustain with any of my basses. I don’t understand why you would want a bass to sustain “for days” anyway. Both of my G&Ls ring like a bell, which is down to the bridge design more than anything else. 

[Dood]

29 minutes ago, itu said:

I think a neck through is closest to monocoque - one piece wooden bass could be nearly possible. Feasible? Maybe not.

 

@Lfalex v1.1 please check SDC's offering. I learned about this construction about five years ago.

 

@Lfalex v1.1

 

Just posting for interest, my Shuker 7 string single cut uses a similar construction method. I have a 7 piece laminate neck which continues all the way in to the body just short of the bridge. So really it's neither a neck-through or a bolt-on!

 

[dclaassen]

Don’t care how the neck is attached so long as I’m happy with the access. Both my basses are 24 fret 5’s. One is through constructed, and the other is bolt on. Both have good access, but the first one is a bit easier wat up on the dusty end. It’s possible to play frets 22-24 all the way across….tougher on bass#2. Best sustain I ever had was with a RD Artist, which has a set neck.

[Woodinblack]

I prefer a neck through or set neck, but honestly it is not something that would make much of a pull either way. So for a given bass available as a neck through and a bolt on, I would go for the former, but that is not something that generally happens.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Quilly said:

I can’t understand this obsession with sustain with some folks and neck throughs . Like how long are you going to let a note ring out in a typical song, realistically 

 

The degree of sustain in a note, the rate at which it is losing volume, is present from the moment it starts. A series of short notes played on an instrument with long sustain is audibly different to the same series of notes played on one with short sustain. 

[FinnDave]

I was advised to avoid through necks by a luthier/guitar tech as they are limited in their ability to be adjusted - no shimming possible (as already mentioned). I have had a few set neck and through neck basses, but currently have only Fender Ps & Js so all are bolt on necks.

[ezbass]

I think just for ease of repair/replacement/adjustment/customisation bolt ons for me. Yes, upper fret access can be hindered, but many systems seem to have overcome that. From an aesthetic POV, neck through.

[chris_b]

I wouldn't choose one neck over the other.

 

So far I've only played bolt on necks, but it's never been a consideration. I'd take what ever comes on the bass that I prefer.

[neepheid]

47 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

I was advised to avoid through necks by a luthier/guitar tech as they are limited in their ability to be adjusted - no shimming possible (as already mentioned).

 

Sounds more like less opportunities for the luthier/guitar tech to extract money from people to me 

 

I don't care either way.  I've owned all three of the main neck join types.  All my set necks and through necks have been made properly in the first place, so no shimming needed, or wanted.  In all the dozens of basses that have passed through my hands, I've only ever had to shim one and that was a bitsa cobbled together from disparate parts which weren't supposed to work together in the first place anyway.

 

A bass in its original configuration which needs shimming is defective IMO, and should never have left the factory.

[FinnDave]

To be honest, I have never had to shim a neck either and I've been playing nearly fifty years now. The chap who advised me to steer clear of through necks is a friend, he wasn't expecting any work from me (lives too far away).

[neepheid]

14 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

To be honest, I have never had to shim a neck either and I've been playing nearly fifty years now. The chap who advised me to steer clear of through necks is a friend, he wasn't expecting any work from me (lives too far away).

 

Ahh, but if you spread the notion that bolt on is best...

 

I am, of course, semi-joking around - just taking the paranoid side of life as per usual...

[Cat Burrito]

My T-bird and Ric are through necks and I love them. My Hofner is a set neck and I love it. My Precision and Jazz are bolt on and I love them. So for me it depends on the bass. None of it is a deal breaker.

[dclaassen]

TBH, I don't think I would buy a cheap or even medium-cost bass with a through neck (I see you, Peavey) because I don't think I would trust the ability to adjust the truss rod over many years. 

[Misdee]

I like both/either, depending on the bass.

 

What I mean by that is any bass is a sum of it's parts and overall construction. A satisfying instrument might have a bolt-on neck or be neck-thru, but if it is enjoyable to use then that is enough. I am not too hung up on  the construction method.

 

I can remember back in the early 1980s when received wisdom was that neck-thru was superior, but that was long before bass players went forwards by going backwards and adopted the new orthodoxy that modern was wrong and vintage retro is right.

[BigRedX]

15 hours ago, itu said:

I think a neck through is closest to monocoque - one piece wooden bass could be nearly possible. Feasible? Maybe not.

 

Have a look at this thread.

 

Also I believe that Jens Ritter has made at least one bass from a single piece of wood.

Edited June 7, 2022 by BigRedX

[EBS_freak]

And then there's Schack...

 

The bolt on... that isn't?!

[BigRedX]

IIRC the Ovation Magnum basses were both bolt-on and glued.